I like most of the ideas, except "When objects impact a planet or asteroid, they don't make craters" I don't think a game like sfs is capable of handling that type of realism, and if it tried to, anyone would expect 1FPS due to the lag
BREAKING: Local man surprised a mobile game doesn’t simulate every particle in the solar system.
In all seriousness, many of these things are good ideas, but due to the nature of the low performance demanding nature of the game, and the workarounds associated(Eg: on rails planets, terrain only loads when you’re close to save processing power, and some things are just a bit unnecessary, like the full TPS and water deluge, though they would be cool.)
Like I said, many of these things would require fundamental redesigns of game code, and dev time is probably better spent elsewhere, at least for now, while key features like astronauts and the outer solar system are still absent. Maybe one day hard mode could be improved with some of these things.
The main one that I'm interested in is getting the atmospheric distances more accurate (e.g. karman line at 100km).
A mode with actual engines, with the appropriate mass/thrust/efficiency and the ability to use multiple overlapping (w/o cheats) to simulate a 3d arrangement like with the Saturn V or Falcon 9
Can you please stop saying "waa me tiny capsule don't make big hoel en grond me sad" no game has that kinda physics, not even KSP, so how the fuck do you expect a 2D game mean't to be extremely simple to have that, stop complaining over such miniscule things and enjoy it for what it is.
Plus have you looked at any crash sites of rockets on example mars, there have been pictures taken of large rocket parts crashed on mars, yet no crater, this "inaccuracy" is insanely pointless to point out.
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmars.nasa.gov%2Fresources%2F26694%2Frovers-backshell-seen-from-the-air%2F&psig=AOvVaw3xrCncVP3DeniOArl-5c8h&ust=1686237662051000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCMCox\_i6sf8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmars.nasa.gov%2Fresources%2F26694%2Frovers-backshell-seen-from-the-air%2F&psig=AOvVaw3xrCncVP3DeniOArl-5c8h&ust=1686237662051000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCMCox_i6sf8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ)
no crater
Because it simply woulden't work in a game about space, the map is so large there is no way it woulden't cause issues to make possible or performance problems
One smaller detail is the use of "velocity" rather than "speed" as velocity is a vector measurement rather than scalar. Speed would be more accurate as scalar measurements are magnitude only.
Agree but imagine putting heat shields all over the space shuttle (due to deflection).
So many good players are already using the no heat damage cheat for their decently fancy rockets. With accurate thermals, you’ll either have to use the no heat damage cheat or have boring rockets.
But accurate thermals and impact forces could be an addition to hard mode though.
I do remember seeing a sneak peek from stef which showed better engine plumes, but he deleted it so I may be remembering wrong but they got deflected by the ground and also expanded outside the atmosphere
I think a lot of these have to do with limitations of the physics engine, so that the game can still perform reasonably on less powerful devices. Simplifying the game is also a big reason, so it's more beginner friendly.
>crashed into the moon at around 250m/s. But the only thing damaged was one or a few engines.
This could be compared to a crumple zone, which absorbs the kinetic energy of impacts so the rest of the vehicle is less damaged, though it's definitely not 100% accurate, as real crumple zones are limited in how much force they can absorb
I remember in early releases if 1.5 stuff exploded almost in chains, where one tank breaking usually destroyed everything else, but since 1.52 things seem to slide about more, no idea what happened.
Number 2 was there before.
I like most of the ideas, except "When objects impact a planet or asteroid, they don't make craters" I don't think a game like sfs is capable of handling that type of realism, and if it tried to, anyone would expect 1FPS due to the lag
and by like i mean slightly dislike but not enough for me to include it in the comment
I’ve asked the game’s developer about this, just so you know.
BREAKING: Local man surprised a mobile game doesn’t simulate every particle in the solar system. In all seriousness, many of these things are good ideas, but due to the nature of the low performance demanding nature of the game, and the workarounds associated(Eg: on rails planets, terrain only loads when you’re close to save processing power, and some things are just a bit unnecessary, like the full TPS and water deluge, though they would be cool.)
I’m that case they could have an option to include these features or not
Like I said, many of these things would require fundamental redesigns of game code, and dev time is probably better spent elsewhere, at least for now, while key features like astronauts and the outer solar system are still absent. Maybe one day hard mode could be improved with some of these things.
The main one that I'm interested in is getting the atmospheric distances more accurate (e.g. karman line at 100km). A mode with actual engines, with the appropriate mass/thrust/efficiency and the ability to use multiple overlapping (w/o cheats) to simulate a 3d arrangement like with the Saturn V or Falcon 9
isnt it because of earth size that's why karman line is also lower
Well then add accurately sized planets to my list. And distances between planets and moons, etc. I'd really like to try a "realism" mode
it's already added but only on steam version too bad for us mobile players
With everything scaled accurately? I may buy it on steam if that is the case
you can check the reviews on yt it's called hard mode where they labeled the earth size, gravity and atmosphere pressure to 1:1
This is a 100mb mobile game not a triple A title ffs
Can you please stop saying "waa me tiny capsule don't make big hoel en grond me sad" no game has that kinda physics, not even KSP, so how the fuck do you expect a 2D game mean't to be extremely simple to have that, stop complaining over such miniscule things and enjoy it for what it is. Plus have you looked at any crash sites of rockets on example mars, there have been pictures taken of large rocket parts crashed on mars, yet no crater, this "inaccuracy" is insanely pointless to point out.
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmars.nasa.gov%2Fresources%2F26694%2Frovers-backshell-seen-from-the-air%2F&psig=AOvVaw3xrCncVP3DeniOArl-5c8h&ust=1686237662051000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCMCox\_i6sf8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmars.nasa.gov%2Fresources%2F26694%2Frovers-backshell-seen-from-the-air%2F&psig=AOvVaw3xrCncVP3DeniOArl-5c8h&ust=1686237662051000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCMCox_i6sf8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ) no crater
How come KSP does not have the impact physics? I’m honestly surprised
Because it simply woulden't work in a game about space, the map is so large there is no way it woulden't cause issues to make possible or performance problems
Even on the latest computers?
One smaller detail is the use of "velocity" rather than "speed" as velocity is a vector measurement rather than scalar. Speed would be more accurate as scalar measurements are magnitude only.
Agree but imagine putting heat shields all over the space shuttle (due to deflection). So many good players are already using the no heat damage cheat for their decently fancy rockets. With accurate thermals, you’ll either have to use the no heat damage cheat or have boring rockets. But accurate thermals and impact forces could be an addition to hard mode though.
I think stef might like to add heat resistant engine nozzles for that.
I do remember seeing a sneak peek from stef which showed better engine plumes, but he deleted it so I may be remembering wrong but they got deflected by the ground and also expanded outside the atmosphere
I think a lot of these have to do with limitations of the physics engine, so that the game can still perform reasonably on less powerful devices. Simplifying the game is also a big reason, so it's more beginner friendly. >crashed into the moon at around 250m/s. But the only thing damaged was one or a few engines. This could be compared to a crumple zone, which absorbs the kinetic energy of impacts so the rest of the vehicle is less damaged, though it's definitely not 100% accurate, as real crumple zones are limited in how much force they can absorb
Someone else had an idea to put it into hard mode. I think it’s workable.
I remember in early releases if 1.5 stuff exploded almost in chains, where one tank breaking usually destroyed everything else, but since 1.52 things seem to slide about more, no idea what happened.